8 Mar
2006
8 Mar
'06
7:45 a.m.
Adam Sampson wrote:
Cesare Marilungo <cesare(a)poeticstudios.com>
writes:
Not judging from what I read on forums. And anyway it is only a matter
of time.
For instance, I bought 20+ cds (and paid lot for them, since they were
not printed in Italy but imported from england) in the past from a band
who put a lot of emphasis on the fetishism of their phisical artefacts.
They also used to emphasize the fact that those were *limited editions*,
but the truth were that they just couldn't afford to print more copies,
or they knew they wouldn't have sold more copies anyway.
Now they're selling their whole catalogue on iTunes.
Have they lost credibility? To me, yes.
Personally, I've ripped all the physical cds I'm listening in these days
at high quality lame vbr mp3s or ogg and listen to them with amaroK.
c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Another reason, and this is why I was sarcastic
with your first
post, Maluvia, is that there are still people who believe that a
printed cd sounds better than a cd-r or a flac file downloaded from
the Net.
It won't sound better, but there are other advantages to buying a real
CD (even if it's a CDR that the band's produced themselves) -- having
a nicely-printed case with liner notes, and having a physical artefact
that represents the music you've paid for. The cost of producing and
shipping a CD (even halfway around the world) is pretty trivial these
days. I'm not at all comfortable paying money just to download files,
but I'm quite happy to buy CDs from musicians who've made their music
available online (and have done, many times -- it's something like a
third of my CD collection now).
Most musicians don't make FLAC files available; they just have lossy
MP3. In that case, buying the CD is the only way of getting a
decent-quality version to listen to once you've decided you like the
music. I don't think it's a business model that's going to make anyone
fantastically wealthy, but it does seem to work pretty well for lots
of musicians at the moment...